Re: Splitting Debian into two projects

[Jim Pick <jim@jimpick.com>]

> From: Jim Pick <jim@jimpick.com>
> > Everytime someone slags you - crack open a beer.  
> 
> It'd be bad for my liver :-)

Maybe try one of those 0.5 percent alcohol beers.  :-)

> It's a quandry for me. There's a rather large contingent that says
> "a democratic organization won't work and the whole thing hangs on
> _you_, Bruce". I tried to find some new leaders and some of them
> haven't lasted so long - I get mail like "now I know why you wanted
> to quit". Then there's another contingent who are sure the developers
> want a more democratic organization.

I think we need some non-democratic person to run the day-to-day stuff.
It seems to me that running the project is more akin to being a 
network administrator rather than being a CEO of a company.  It's
definitely a do-it-yourself operation. 
 
> Meanwhile I really don't need this weight on my shoulders. While I once
> planned to build a Linux product based on Debian, that has become a hobby
> as I've been more successful than expected in the movie business.

Well, hey, a movie star in our midst.  :-)

That does sound more interesting than running a Linux distribution.  Most
people I talk don't know what the heck Linux is...
 
> This Debian board has been a failure. I just told them the board was
> dissolved. Maybe they can run the "democratic" version of the
> organization.

I don't know if they've been a failure or not.  There's too much
secrecy -- I don't know if they are doing something or if they are not.

I'd personally like to see debian-private, and the mailing list for
the board, opened up to the public.  They wouldn't be invited to
post (they could if they wanted to though) -- but at least everyone
could see what was going on.
 
> This is all very frustrating. I fear that it could be the end of the
> project.

Not if I have anything to do with it.  Debian, in my mind, is the
best Linux distribution -- and Linux is the best OS for the sort of
stuff I do -- so that's quite an accomplishment.

We just need to work harder at building "consensus".

Consensus isn't democracy though - far from it.  It's just a process,
and in the end, a decision is made.  Benevolent dictators can use
consensus to affect their goals.

Debian had grown to be a big project, with close to two hundred
developers, and thousands of users.  To make things more complicated,
nobody is getting paid, so they are all motivated by their own
little agendas and beliefs.  I've got my own motivations and goals
for the project - most of which I have not disclosed publicly.

In order to control a group of developers like this, serious politicking 
is needed - whether or not the project is run by dictatorship or by 
democracy.  There's just no way it can be run like a company, because
nobody is controlling the paycheques.

I personally would like to see Bruce run the project - he's been there
since the beginning.  But maybe he's not the guy to do the actual
politicking.  (time for a beer, Bruce)

Maybe it's time we started talking about what people's visions, plans,
and aspirations for the project are.  Maybe we're just suffering from
a lack of consensus on the direction of the project.  Actually, I'm
100% certain that this is the source of the problems... and the
board isn't going to solve that one, is it?

Cheers,

 - Jim

Attachment: pgpkgYTCD5KVx.pgp
Description: PGP signature